CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Engineered Air v. LeCesse Bros. Contracting, Inc.

This is a concurring opinion regarding a class action lawsuit filed under Article 3-A of the Lien Law. The plaintiff, a material supplier to subcontractor G.A. Dyce, Inc., sued LeCesse Brothers Contracting, Inc., the contractor, to share funds owed to Dyce. The core issue concerned LeCesse’s affirmative defense, which sought to offset legal expenses incurred in defending the action against funds owed to Dyce, based on a subcontract provision. The concurring judge agrees with the majority's decision that the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion to dismiss this affirmative defense. The opinion clarifies that the plaintiff is subrogated to Dyce's rights, and LeCesse should not be allowed to deduct legal fees. It also emphasizes the distinct trust obligations under the Lien Law, clarifying that a contractor is not a guarantor for a subcontractor's creditors.

Lien LawTrust FundsSubcontractorContractorClass ActionAffirmative DefenseLegal FeesMechanics' LiensSubrogationAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. 01-17-0002-1912
Regular Panel Decision

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 3 v. Charter Communications, Inc.

Plaintiff International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 3 ("Local 3") sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to stay an arbitration initiated by defendant Charter Communications, Inc. ("Charter"). The arbitration concerns a work stoppage and alleged violation of a no-strike clause. The court denied Local 3's motion, ruling that Local 3 failed to demonstrate irreparable harm because it chose not to participate in the arbitration and could later challenge any adverse arbitral award in court. The decision emphasized that the monetary cost of arbitration alone does not constitute irreparable injury and highlighted the importance of demonstrating actual harm.

Arbitration StayPreliminary InjunctionTemporary Restraining OrderLabor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Strike ClauseIrreparable HarmArbitrabilityFederal Court ProcedureJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jermyn v. Best Buy Stores, L.P.

This case addresses Defendant Best Buy's second motion to decertify a class of New York customers who alleged the company denied valid price match requests through a secret corporate "Anti-Price Matching Policy." The court had previously certified the class for both injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2) and money damages under Rule 23(b)(3). Best Buy's motion for decertification was based on the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, which clarified standards for class commonality and the appropriateness of monetary claims in Rule 23(b)(2) classes. The court denied the motion, distinguishing Dukes by noting that the plaintiffs here successfully alleged and provided substantial proof of a specific, centralized illegal corporate policy, unlike the broad discretion at issue in Dukes. Furthermore, the court emphasized that its certification involved separate classes for injunctive and monetary relief, thus not violating Dukes' guidance on combined (b)(2) claims.

Class ActionDecertification MotionCommonalityRule 23(b)(2) CertificationRule 23(b)(3) CertificationConsumer ProtectionPrice Match PolicyDeceptive Business PracticesCorporate PolicyMonetary Damages
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parker v. Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P.

This Memorandum & Order addresses plaintiffs' objections to a Magistrate Judge's recommendations regarding class certification. Plaintiffs Andrew Parker and Eric De-Brauwere sued Time Warner Cable, alleging violations of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 by disclosing subscriber information. District Judge Glasser adopted the Magistrate Judge's findings, denying class certification for monetary claims under Rule 23(b)(2) due to the predominance of monetary relief, and denying full certification under Rule 23(b)(3) because a class action was deemed not superior given the statutory provisions for individual remedies. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' state law claims. Ultimately, the plaintiffs' objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report & Recommendation were denied, and the recommendations were adopted.

Class ActionClass CertificationRule 23(b)(2)Rule 23(b)(3)Cable Communications Policy ActSubscriber PrivacyMonetary ReliefInjunctive ReliefEastern District of New YorkMagistrate Judge Recommendation
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 3 v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc.

This case concerns a dispute between Local 3 and Charter Communications regarding a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The core issue is whether Local 3 members were bound by a CBA provision requiring arbitration of disputes during a strike in March 2017. The court found that Local 3's conduct, including signing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), ratifying it, accepting improved wages and benefits, and utilizing grievance and arbitration procedures for almost two years, manifested an intent to be bound by the no-strike and arbitration provisions. Despite previous NLRB decisions regarding the inclusion of riders in the CBA, the District Court determined that the parties' actions indicated a binding agreement on the no-strike and grievance terms. Consequently, summary judgment was granted in favor of Charter, and arbitration was ordered.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationNo-Strike ClauseSummary JudgmentLabor Management Relations ActContract LawIntent to be BoundUnion DisputeEmployer-Employee RelationsFederal Court Jurisdiction
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen Bradley Co. v. Local Union No. 3 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This motion concerns plaintiffs' request to hold Harry VanArsdale, Jr., and Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, in contempt for failing to obey a subpoena. The underlying action involves accusations of a conspiracy to prevent the sale of electrical products. During proceedings before a Special Master, VanArsdale, Jr., as business manager of the Union, refused to produce a complete file of 'Allied Union News' issues despite a validly issued subpoena duces tecum. The court acknowledges the refusal was not contumacious but legally incorrect. Consequently, the court finds both VanArsdale, Jr., and Local Union No. 3 in contempt and orders the production of the requested documents, suspending punishment and costs contingent on their compliance.

Contempt of CourtSubpoena Duces TecumLabor UnionDiscoveryDocument ProductionSpecial MasterConspiracyInterstate CommerceRefusal to ComplyCourt Order
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Larsen v. JBC Legal Group, P.C.

The plaintiff, Kimberley Larsen, filed a class action lawsuit against JBC Legal Group, P.C., and other defendants under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Larsen alleged that the defendants violated the FDCPA by sending a misleading collection letter attempting to collect debts from New York consumers. The plaintiff defined two classes, Class A and Class B, based on different alleged FDCPA violations. Larsen moved for permission to move simultaneously for summary judgment and Rule 23(b)(3) class certification, or alternatively, for Rule 23(b)(2) class certification, primarily to shift the cost of notice to the defendants. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for simultaneous summary judgment and Rule 23(b)(3) class certification, citing Supreme Court precedent that typically requires the plaintiff to bear the cost of notice. The court also indicated that Rule 23(b)(2) certification is unlikely to be granted in FDCPA cases in the Second Circuit.

FDCPAClass ActionSummary JudgmentClass CertificationRule 23(b)(3)Rule 23(b)(2)Cost of NoticeFair Debt CollectionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureDebt Collection Practices
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cruz v. Local Union Number 3 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This case, presided over by District Judge Spatt, addresses post-trial motions concerning attorney's fees and damages following a class action. Initially, plaintiffs sued employer Robert Abbey, Inc. under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (WARN) (settled for $110,000) and both the employer and Local Union Number 3 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act for breach of fair representation. After class decertification, the claims of fourteen plaintiffs against the Union went to a jury, which found the Union liable for breaching its duty of fair representation and awarded compensatory damages to eight of them. The Court denied the Union's post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law but vacated the jury's compensatory damage award, instead granting nominal damages of $1 to each of the eight prevailing plaintiffs due to lack of evidentiary support for the monetary award. The Court also determined that plaintiffs' attorneys were entitled to recover attorney's fees for the Union's breach of duty of fair representation, calculating these fees based on reasonable hours and rates, and awarded specific amounts to the law firms Hall & Sloan ($4,775.00) and Davis & Eisenberg ($42,475.00), for a total of $47,250.00. Additionally, the Court awarded $1,177.15 in costs and denied the plaintiffs' application for an award of prejudgment interest.

Attorney's FeesNominal DamagesBreach of Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor Management Relations ActWARN ActSettlementJury VerdictPost-Trial MotionsLodestar MethodClass Action Decertification
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greenwich Financial Services Distressed Mortgage Fund 3, LLC v. Countrywide Financial Corp.

Plaintiffs Greenwich Financial Services Distressed Mortgage Fund 3, LLC and QED LLC filed a putative class action against Countrywide Financial Corporation and its subsidiaries. Plaintiffs, who hold mortgage-backed securities, claimed that Countrywide's modifications to mortgage loans, stemming from a settlement with state Attorneys General, obligate Countrywide to repurchase these loans as per the Pooling and Servicing Agreements. Countrywide removed the case to federal court, asserting jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, arguing that the claims involved substantial federal questions under the Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA). The Court, under Judge Richard J. Holwell, concluded that neither CAFA's securities-related exception nor TILA provided the necessary grounds for federal subject matter jurisdiction. As a result, the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court was granted.

RemandSubject Matter JurisdictionClass Action Fairness ActTruth-in-Lending ActMortgage-Backed SecuritiesPooling and Servicing AgreementsFederal Question JurisdictionState Law ClaimsContract InterpretationPredatory Lending
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 1995

Pesantez v. Boyle Environmental Services, Inc.

The Supreme Court, New York County, issued an order on August 31, 1995, concerning a class action brought by employees seeking prevailing wages for asbestos removal work. The court modified a previous order, redefining the class to specifically include all past and present employees of Azevedo & Boyle Contracting, Inc. and its alleged successor, Boyle Environmental Services Inc. It also stayed all claims against J. Greaney Construction Corp. due to bankruptcy, and against Reliance Insurance Company of New York as Greaney's surety. Furthermore, the court remanded claims made under Labor Law § 220 to the IAS Court for further development and determination, while affirming common-law breach of contract claims.

Wage disputeClass actionPrevailing wageAsbestos removalLabor Law § 220Class certificationBankruptcy stayBreach of contractNew York CountySupreme Court
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 2,517 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational